Siberian strategy
eames57 last edited by
How many troops, if any, do you leave in Amur on R1 and why?
What are the pros and cons of marching 6 guys west across the steppe instead of stacking 18 in Amur on R2?
Ichabod '17 last edited by
Stack 18 troops in Amur and a competent axis player will quickly change their strategy to Crussia. Those 18 troops will be dusted off and then there won't be anything much at all to slow Japan down from quickly getting up to 7-8 IPCs worth of Russian territory.
In my opinion, Japan should always work together with Germany and Italy to declare war on, and invade, Russia on Round 1(although Italy is not within range to send troops yet). Stacking 18 infantry is only going to get 3 hits and makes it easier, not harder, for the Japanese to run through Russia from the Far East to Moscow. Just like the Russians did in real life against the Germans, both East and West you need to retreat and only leave an infantry on the territory if they are able to blitz with a tank. Letting the Japanese destroy 59 IPC's(18 infantry plus an AA), which is 2 turns worth of average Russian income, only helps the Axis. And as Russia, the outcome of the game rests on you, and your ability to follow three key ideas:
1-Buy smartly
2-Retreat
3-Don't lose Moscow
Good luck playing Russia and God Bless you from AxisandAlliesGeneral
Amalec last edited by
Stacking in Amur is suicidal. Japan can reach it too easily and with too much. You'll get a half dozen hits or so before being flattened by the Japanese airforce and once those troops are gone, the far east will be blitz'd quickly and the Soviets will be starved far worse than usual. Unfortunately, having just infantry and AA means you've got very little offensive power and Japan's enormous airforce means you've got even less defensive ability. So their job is really to make the best out of a bad situation.
I send the 6 INF closest to Moscow back. They'll be essential and make it in time if Germany decides to go head on for Moscow.
The other 12 INF 2 AA will be moved to Buryatia. Any further forward and a Japanese attack on Amur will leave them cut off and as good as dead.
On R2, I'll send 2 AA and, depending on Axis play, possibly 6 INF back to Moscow. If the Japanese airforce hits your infantry the stack is dead, so the AA are next to useless there. They might make a huge difference in a German attack on Moscow though.
For the rest of the game, those 6/12 Infantry's job is to force the Japanese to commit. They'll need to move significant air/land forces in position to hit the stack, at which point you retreat. Then repeat. Every step it makes forward forces Japan to commit enough of it's troops and have planes in range to attack a 6/12 Infantry stack, and enough troops to defend against an attack from one since it can't land it's aircraft after moving forward. This helps take pressure off India, China and The Pacific.
At Yenisey, Japanese troops will be in range for your fighters/tac(s) out of Moscow. Probably, Japan will have 4-6 ground units - possibly with some following further back. In other words: they won't have enough to push any further forward without being destroyed in a counter attack. If you get lucky, they'll move forward and die. If not, you'll trade Yenisey back and forth with small attacks for a couple turns. Either way, buying time and killing scarce Japanese ground forces is really the best you can ask for.
simon33 '19 '17 '16 last edited by
They only make it from a G3 DOW if Germany can be slowed down by a turn.
There's an average of 7 hits round one if 6+ planes are included in the attack. Depending on the attack you've got to expect to lose 10 or so inf and a plane as Japan.
Normally, inf move south from Manchuria J1 so Amur is normally occupied J2 and onwards.
siparo '18 '17 '16 last edited by
The correct answer is 0 on R1. If the Japanese player doesn't threaten and leaves few defenders in Manchuria or Korea with no air within range, then you may consider stacking in Amur as a threat. Otherwise back up and play defense. Let him come in and give you the Mongolians. You should only invade under the right circumstances.
The first stack will make it on R6. Technically, a 2 turn German delay assuming a G1/G2 declare but with the 11 INF 3 ART in Germany being involved in any attack on Moscow. Frankly, if you can't keep the German's out of Moscow for that long, regardless of the German declare, you need to seriously reconsider your game.
@eames57:
Pro: may help defend Moscow.
Con: Eastern force is far easier to take down.
Private-Panic '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 last edited by
My preference is withdrawing to Moscow.
I don't think I have yet lost Moscow before they get there, but with perhaps 20+ games of G40 under my belt there are plenty of lessons for me still to learn.
And quite often the Mongolia rule keeps Japan out of all but the three most easterly territories for quite a number of turns.
While those Amur units can slow down Japanese progress in China and/or India, it is easier for Germany to win this game than Japan. The defence of Moscow is much more crucial than those eastern territories. And if/when Moscow falls a saved Russian stack retreating to the Middle East can save the game for the Allies.
Certainly stacking all 18 in Amur on R1 is suicide, agreed. But what about 6 and an AA? Leaving 6 in Amur to die would quickly get replenished by Mongolian troops. Putting ten in there only leaves you with a stack of 14 to defend afterwards, but forces Japan to commit to the north some much needed ground troops. The tradeoff is it opens Mongolia to Japan to blitz through, but it also opens it up for Russia to come help defend China. I don't know whose advantage that is.
Let me rephrase my original question. Does anyone find that putting a small number of troops, like 4 or 6, on Amur on R1 puts any pressure on Japan and changes his opening gambit?
(It's been a good discussion on the merits of bringing troops back to Moscow. But if I see that Germany is going to attack on G1 or G2, I don't bother; they won't get there in time. If Buryalia starts west on a G3 DOW, they can at least retake Moscow if Germany is left with only a couple ground troops there. But on a G3 I'm really hoping I can stall Germany a turn to get them there in time to defend.)
BirthOfIron '18 '17 last edited by
I don't see a benefit for leaving any troops in Amur. That is right on Japan's front door and it is easy for Japan to deal with them when it is convenient. It is still suicide for the Russian troops - just suicide on a smaller scale.
I don't see that it offers much benefit in terms of Russia being able to assist China either. If Japan wants China, she will get it. The job of China is to die as slowly as possible. And Russia is under pressure from Germany so they typically don't have the units to spare in assisting China.
Is the idea that the troops left there are bait? Otherwise, I can't really see the why.
GeneralHandGrenade '18 '17 '16 last edited by
I usually leave 6 behind just to provide a bit of a speed bump for Japan if they decide to go north. Not enough to pose a threat with all of the other 14 units heading back to Moscow.
Black_Elk '22 '21 '19 '15 '14 last edited by
The game doesn't give Zhukov anything to work with. Where are his tanks and artillery and aircraft?
In addition to the 15 infantry divisions, there were also like 1,500 tanks and 1,500 aircraft stationed there to keep the Japanese at bay, and these were all battle hardened Khalkhin Gol vets.
Just for point of reference the entire Japanese Empire was fielding what like 4000 aircraft at the time? 1000 and change for the Army, like 3000 and change for the Navy. And the Russians were consistently out producing them in the air year to year.
I know there is no pretense of relative unit numbers in A&A, but you'd think the Soviets would have at least 1 air unit in the Far East, to Japan's 20+.
Maybe a single tank in the Far East to show why Stalin was willing to entrust dude with fate of the entire Soviet Union when the Germans came knocking.
Instead Japan just smokes Amur on this board, if the Soviet player looks to history as any kind of guide for how they should be playing. Oh well. Guess it's bounce or die.
taamvan '21 '20 '18 '17 last edited by
Every time someone brings up realism in AxA i re read Khalkin Gol and how tin pressed tanks and 19th century japanese junk was supposed to take on a real modern combined arms force, over rough terrain, even a thrown together Soviet version transported into the wilderness and supported by cossack riders
japan fought a few skirmishes and gave up…and then 2 years later decided to attack the other future superpower on the water and islands…
zen like wisdom vs suicidal egotistical military junta?
not all tanks are created equal (except in AxA to keep things simple)
at least G41Oztea gives us a viable eastern force, but then the fantasy fun Axis advantage evaporates
good points, SH
they did make an amazing account of their technological progress and bravery, but thats not enough and just like Hitler, they made sure they traded friends for enemies at a rapid pace until there were no friends and theyd made a (semi) unprovoked war every other power on the planet
once they'd shown the soviets how weak their power projection and logistics (and equipment) were, and lost a few battles, they made their situation worse than if they hadnt probed and provoked at all. All those soviet units just went back west gradually, sometimes arriving off the TSR right in time to stop the nazis.
Maybe a standoff would have been better but the entire era is one of fatally agressive decisionmaking and self-destructive ambition
General Veers '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 last edited by
At the very least the 64 IPC value of units in Siberia should be redistributed into mobile units that give the Russian player flexibility to return to Moscow or send some units to China sooner.
Hunter Jones last edited by
I usually do what GHG does, if the Japanese attack those six, you get six for the six you lost in the attack. Often by round 3 or 4 you have a general idea of what the Axis are doing. If its Crussia, then I send 6 to Moscow, and leave the other 6 behind. If China is in trouble, then those 12 enter China. Otherwise they go to Moscow along with the AAA guns. That's my take on it.
That's an interesting idea, I'll try it out at my next game
oysteilo '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 last edited by
If Germany buy men for Russia G1 I "rush" all 20 units back. If Germany buy navy I group them in buryatia with the option of moving them back to Amur on R2
Sometimes I also move the Burytia men (6) back to moscow anyway on R1
good idea, oystello, to react.
If you want a real mobile force Russia East, try G41 by Oztea.
The answer to the OP's question IMO? 1 guy. Leave 1 so they cant take it without committing at least 2 infantry.
So the general consensus is that leaving up to 6 men in Amur doesn't much affect Japan's opening move, so it doesn't really matter. Leaving 7-10 might work as bait. Leaving anything higher than that is just dumb. How many you leave in Amur is merely a question of which options you want to keep open for round 2. If you leave any, you're closing the option of moving those guys west. If you don't leave any, you don't have the option of attacking Manchuria or Korea, or at least putting pressure there to prevent Japanese troops from heading south.
For those of you that move everything west except a small speedbump, do you find that Japan feels free to move all his Manchurian and even Korean troops south? Even on a Jdow1, is he able to sweep through China? (I know someone is going to say that if Japan wants, there's nothing you can do to prevent him from taking all of China easily, but that's only if he prioritizes it. By moving all Siberian troops west, is Japan often able to take China and put pressure on India and defend DEI?)
Also, in your games does American ever have the chance to take Korea? If so, wouldn't you want a few Ruskies to sit down on top of it?
I think I'm starting to lean toward leaving 8 guys on Amur round 1 as bait just to draw a lot of his guys up and away from the real fight. Or to attack Manchuria round 2 just to kill straggling ground troops if the option is there. It leaves enough guys to slow down mobile units blitzing through Siberia with a couple left over to go round Mongolia and protect the Chinese flank. But then again I usually have much easier time defending Moscow in its final hour than I do containing Japan.
Usually, leaving six behind as a speed bump is enough for Japan to leave at least 6-7 of their own on the border. Even if a J1 DOW happens. That's [Insert number that the Japanese leave] not attacking vital Allied Territories(India, Malaya, China, Etc.). Usually Korea is jumped on by the Russians, in my games(Late game). Those other 12 you move away is either going to support China or Moscow, or both. Its based mostly on what is happening during the game.
Leaving 7-10 might work as bait. Leaving anything higher than that is just dumb. How many you leave in Amur is merely a question of which options you want to keep open for round 2. If you leave any, you're closing the option of moving those guys west. If you don't leave any, you don't have the option of attacking Manchuria or Korea, or at least putting pressure there to prevent Japanese troops from heading south.
going to try the 7-10 infantry left in Amur. You're right, ANYTHING higher is dumb. What Russia wants to do on R2 is its own choice, with the exception of a G1 Barbarossa or it looks like the Axis are going for Crussia.
@ShadowHAwk:
If you give each country really realistic number of troops how would the axis even think of wining. Some things are changed for game balance as well as realism, russia wasnt going to attack japan because it didnt feel like it. Us would not go to war over phili or london it would stay in isolation unless japan or germany declared war or attacked them directly. And no sane axis player would ever attack the US, they would take the money island, phili, india, london, middle east, australia and then consider russia. After all was sorted they would maby attack the US.
I don't agree with your opinion about what it would take for the US to join the allies in WW2. I believe the US would NOT have stayed out of the war over Philippines or London. At the time, the Philippines was a US territory with lots of US troops there. That's self-explanatory. Hawaii was no different at the time. Regarding London, the US has a connection with the UK that's deeper than a traditional ally. I think Germany invading and taking over England would have brought a cry across the US strongly advocating to liberate them. However, if Germany did pull that off, I'm not really sure that the US would have had what it would have taken to do that. The US Army had lots of growing pains when American troops really started fighting a lot in 1943. At that time troops and commanders were all very inexperienced.
If you wanted to re-tweak this, you could just give them the $64 IPCs and let the design the force that is up there. However, there would be an optimal way to do this, which would be quickly discovered, and it wouldn't be so much flexible as obvious (eg, buy 5-6 fighters, send em home…)
The pieces here aren't a threat because there aren't any mobile, threat projection units with them. So, Japan isn't too scared when you leave them nearby, and they have a diplomacy rule to hide behind (loss of Mongolian help).
Really, you need to block Japan and slow him down as much as you can, 1 guy 1 territory at a time. Having those guys head back for Moscow has an additional plus; if most of them survive you have a force waiting in North Central Russia that can counterattack Japan as they try to rip Russias backdoor apart and take all your $$$.
As you are stating, the fact that the submarine war (and the blitz) appeared to be putting the UK close to the ropes was a MAJOR factor in ending US neutrality. The US began "neutrality patrols" guarding ships carrying arms as far as they could justify, and right before the war, even attacking german submarines carrying out "legitimate attacks" on UK war shipping.
German repeatedly protested this "interested neutrality" in both world war 1 and 2. The US hid behind this to ship arms to multiple belligerent parties, of its choosing and in its own interest, which is about as not-neutral as it gets. That's some "Special Relationship" as the british call it.
As I've pointed out before, I believe 1-2 US destroyers were sunk and had begun depth charging german contacts before December 7, 1941, so the German submarine captains already understood that they were standing on the line between war and peace.
Wikipedia;
"In the "Greer Incident" on 4 September 1941 the destroyer USS Greer (DD-145) was fired upon with torpedoes by German submarine U-652."
"Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by German submarine U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[7] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[8] might be considered the first American naval losses of World War II. The United States was neither officially involved in the war at the time nor did the incidents cause them to declare war."
General UK Strategy
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • calvinhobbesliker
@kungfujew:
Sorry, that's G40 Multi. 🙂
I figured
Classic Strategies Die Hard
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • GuamSolo
Good suggestions, except it leaves me wondering about Japan putting some, even a little, pressure on Russian. Like I said before, it is in my DNA to squeeze Russia with the Axis. It may be that your suggestions are the best route for Japan but including a smaller invasion of East Russia.
General strategy question
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • Simon98v
@The-Pripet-Martian said in General strategy question:
For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you'll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.
According to probability, yes, but in practise, if you really need that territory, I'd go in with atleast 3 inf. Hitting 2 with 3 inf on def is not too uncommon. Hitting 3 is rather unlikely.
On top of that it also depends who will earn from a war of attrition. If I do, I go, no worries. If I don't, I won't, unless it's for clear strategical and tactical purposes (like your opponent not being able to land planes in a stack next to your Capital).
Sea Lion is a very good Strategy for Germany if done Correct
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • AlphaAeffchen
@AlphaAeffchen:
@ Kreuzfeld. You are totally right but the problem is if i do this buys for UK they can do nothing for many rounds in Europe. Italy gets very strong in the med. The USA have to fight Japan. The allies in Europe are getting a problem because UK is isolatet because of only inf buy and USA has to Focus on Japan (but you are right i have to do this buy for UK).
In the scenario I made, US will only have to buy 2 bombers on US 1 (in most scenarios) and move 3 of the US planes to canada. They are capable of going towards Japan if Germany don't buy the TTs in G2.
If germany doen't buy 3 TTs on G1 (and save their money instead), I am doing taronto, and buy 6 inf and 1 ftr and lose no time in the Med. If they do buy 7 art on G1, I am buying a mIC in egypt and 5 inf in UK.
The only "loosing investments" UK has is : 3 inf instead of ftr on UK1, no taronto on UK 1 (I think 3 useless german transports might be too steep a price for germany to pay for this result).
The other losing investment is the canadian airbase and a few allied TTs on UK2/US2, however, they are more than offsett by the 9 german TTs that has to be bought to force me to do it.
The advantage I get for this plan is that no german should try for the sealion after US1, then that is just a lost game if they buy the 9 TTs. This means that I can (if I want to) send everything US builds against japan, including US turn 1 build. I am still taking Persia on UK1, so I can build the mIC on UK2 and shut down the middle east as fast as possible. My favourite way of playing the UK is to have 1 mIC in each of iran, iraq and egypt, and to use them to buy volumes of inf and mechs for a giant uk landarmy that can reach where i want them
I still think the game is favouring the axis, all I was commenting on was that in a J1, it is so much cheaper for the allied to prevent the sealion, so it will never happen.
All Out Strategy(Axis)
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • Alpha Admiral
@Alpha-Admiral Germany goes before Japan, so if you attack USA with germany, the benefits of waiting with Japan (low US income) are a bit scrambled. Also, you may not be able to kill the entire UK fleet without sacrificing the precious German battleship if you divert subs to other objectives.
The diplomatic rules in Global 40 give you precious time and space for the Axis to play and cavort all over the UK, France and China. You need to sacrifice that advantage at a maximum cost to the Allies.
Strategies to shorten turn lengths
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • wilk7011
Probably can add this Houserule:
Our fastest game ever
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34868.msg1350898#msg1350898
USA Fighter Strategy
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • Nippon-koku
@teslas:
My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you'll be shaking up your opponent who isn't used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over "perfect" play any day.
It sounds like a plausible curveball against someone who prefers to run a general script / perfect play to get them out of their comfort zone.
Nothing more rewarding than taking advantage of mistakes because someone had their strategy rattled.
German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
Axis & Allies Global 1940 • • TheMethuselah
Oh, it is, because all the bombers raises the stakes and risks
You can make the dice work for you - if the ships miss and the AA misses, no amount of strategy and tactical ability can stop that.